From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09B80608AE for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2022 15:28:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id F11401D2A8 for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2022 15:28:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id DBAED1D29D for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2022 15:28:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id AF9B246CAD for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2022 15:28:56 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 15:28:55 +0100 From: Stoiko Ivanov To: Thomas Lamprecht Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion Message-ID: <20220202152855.040d20c1@rosa.proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <897a7e1f-929f-24cc-41af-dcbf1158102c@proxmox.com> References: <20220201220331.3491615-1-s.ivanov@proxmox.com> <897a7e1f-929f-24cc-41af-dcbf1158102c@proxmox.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.8 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.253 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC pve-kernel-meta 0/5] unify boot-mode config X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2022 14:28:58 -0000 On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 10:03:05 +0100 Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > On 01.02.22 23:03, Stoiko Ivanov wrote: > > patch 3 drops systemd-boot and uses grub for both boot-modes, hopefully > > unifying the boot-experience and causing less confusion (currently I suggest > > to look at the screen while booting to find out which boot-loader is used) > > > > (Sadly systemd-boot (which I would prefer, justifiably) > > won't get support for legacy boot) > > > The thing is, non-uefi systems will become more rare anyhow, so why > bother with that? The simplicity of systemd-boot is worth the few (?) > confusion - I mean what exactly is there confusing anyway, if most relevant > actions can be handled through our tool anyway? > > I'm not definitive yet, but currently rather tending to NACK that. Thanks for the feedback! Hmm - I do see your point - motivation was that it felt like a logical next step after adapting the config of systemd-boot to get the images from where grub needs them to have the system bootable in both modes - and having a single place to configure the boot-loader (kernel cmdline, pinning) seemed sensible (and less code in p-b-t should correlate with less bugs in p-b-t). Add to that my biased view (a few forum-threads where people did not know which boot loader they used - e.g. [0,1,2] vs. the silent majority, who either does not need it, or knows it) that most users expect /etc/default/grub to be the place for editing the kernel commandline (following the blog/forum/website posts only mentioning this) But OTOH I was a bit hesitant as well (since it would mean that the blog/forum/website posts of the past 2 years would now become 'wrong' and cause even more confusion). Also (quite biased as well) - there are quite a few threads with grub failing to boot vs. none that I'm aware of, where systemd-boot fails. So - no hard feelings from my side either - I was curios if it would work as a POC On a side-note - I just learned that grub in efi-mode works fine (without explicit configuration) over a serial terminal (a use-case I need for myself ;) [0] https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/amd-core-display-pass-through-install-win10-does-not-start.103651/post-447007 [1] https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/unable-to-boot-after-pve-efiboot-tool-refresh.103149/ [2] https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/no-iommu-detected-please-activate-it.102119/